On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:05 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:48 PM Dmitrij Pochepko
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I updated patch according to all your comments.
> > Also bootstrapped and tested again on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and
> > aarch64-linux-gnu, which took some t
On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 12:04 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:48 PM Dmitrij Pochepko
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > I updated patch according to all your comments.
> > Also bootstrapped and tested again on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and
> > aarch64-linux-gnu, which took some
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:48 PM Dmitrij Pochepko
wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I updated patch according to all your comments.
> Also bootstrapped and tested again on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and
> aarch64-linux-gnu, which took some time.
>
> attached v3.
OK.
Thanks,
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Dmitrij
>
> On
Hi Richard,
I updated patch according to all your comments.
Also bootstrapped and tested again on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and
aarch64-linux-gnu, which took some time.
attached v3.
Thanks,
Dmitrij
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 09:47:04AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:29 PM Dmit
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 5:29 PM Dmitrij Pochepko
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> can anybody take a look at v2?
+(if (tree_to_uhwi (@4) == 1
+ && tree_to_uhwi (@10) == 2 && tree_to_uhwi (@5) == 4
those will still ICE for large __int128_t constants. Since you do not match
any conversions you shou
Hi,
can anybody take a look at v2?
Thanks,
Dmitrij
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 10:03:40PM +0300, Dmitrij Pochepko wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Please take a look at v2 (attached).
> I changed patch according to review comments. The same testing was performed
> again.
>
> Thanks,
> Dmitrij
>
> On Thu, Se
Hi all.
Please take a look at v2 (attached).
I changed patch according to review comments. The same testing was performed
again.
Thanks,
Dmitrij
On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:34:49PM +0300, Dmitrij Pochepko wrote:
> This patch adds matching for Hamming weight (popcount) implementation. The
> foll
Hi,
thank you for looking into it.
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 12:13:34PM +, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +(simplify
> + (convert
> +(rshift
> + (mult
>
> > is the outer convert really necessary? That is, if we change
> > the simplification result to
>
> Indeed that should be "co
Hi,
thank you for looking into it.
On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 12:23:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:35 PM Dmitrij Pochepko
> wrote:
> >
> > This patch adds matching for Hamming weight (popcount) implementation. The
> > following sources:
> >
> > int
> > foo64 (unsigned
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:13 PM Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> +(simplify
> + (convert
> +(rshift
> + (mult
>
> > is the outer convert really necessary? That is, if we change
> > the simplification result to
>
> Indeed that should be "convert?" to make it optional.
Rather drop it, a
Hi,
+(simplify
+ (convert
+(rshift
+ (mult
> is the outer convert really necessary? That is, if we change
> the simplification result to
Indeed that should be "convert?" to make it optional.
> Is the Hamming weight popcount
> faster than the libgcc table-based approach? I wonder if
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 5:35 PM Dmitrij Pochepko
wrote:
>
> This patch adds matching for Hamming weight (popcount) implementation. The
> following sources:
>
> int
> foo64 (unsigned long long a)
> {
> unsigned long long b = a;
> b -= ((b>>1) & 0xULL);
> b = ((b>>2) & 0x
This patch adds matching for Hamming weight (popcount) implementation. The
following sources:
int
foo64 (unsigned long long a)
{
unsigned long long b = a;
b -= ((b>>1) & 0xULL);
b = ((b>>2) & 0xULL) + (b & 0xULL);
b = ((b>>4) + b) &
13 matches
Mail list logo
